Thursday, December 8, 2016

Moral relativism is
the notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized
according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural
influences. So what may have been viewed as morally wrong in the 1600s, may
not be viewed as morally wrong in the 21st century. What is viewed
as morally wrong by one culture, may not be morally wrong for another culture.

Proponents of moral
relativism site man’s growing sophistication as the basis of their adherence to
belief. Proponents declare that man has grown as a species and previous
moral standards and cultural morays must change.

The opposite of moral
relativism is moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is the notion that right
and wrong are not subjective, but is objective. An objective standard is used
to measure right and wrong regardless of differing times, cultures, or philosophies.

Certainly, history has seen the misapplication of moral
absolutism by some people. However, that misapplication does not negate the
need for moral absolutism.

A society left to determine its own version of right and
wrong, its own version of morality, or its own version of acceptable human
behavior will produce a society based on pleasure, comfort, and ease.

Transcendent morality
is the moral compass that keeps humankind from veering into moral disaster. Although
rejected by some philosophers, some members of academia, and others, some form
of transcendent morally is essential to prevent a degradation of society. Historically, the Bible is the most honored
moral code. It has survived the changing of empires, shifting cultures, and
varying times.

The Bible contains God’s standard for living. Some may
disagree with it. Others may openly reject it. The Bible IS the objective
standard for moral conduct. The Bible is the transcendent standard for moral
conduct. The Bible is GOD’S standard for moral conduct.